Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-21 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/21/2017 04:06 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > I ask because your example highlighted two types of problems. That > they could be aggregated doesn't seem an necessary or innate property. > > The difficulty with the sort of aggregation design you propose is that > you need to aggregate and I

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-21 Thread Martin Thomson
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems? > > I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the > first error is hoisted

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-21 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/21/2017 11:48 AM, Niklas Keller wrote: > How about "causes"? I think this also implies more meaning than there really is. It also has the unfortunate property of being both a plural noun and a transitive verb, which could be confusing. Is there a problem with sub-problems?

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-21 Thread Niklas Keller
2017-11-21 19:55 GMT+01:00 Jacob Hoffman-Andrews : > On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems? > > I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the > first error is hoisted to the

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-21 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems? I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the first error is hoisted to the top position, so a naive client would only show the first error. Instead,

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-20 Thread Martin Thomson
Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems? On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > I've submitted a PR adding this to the spec: > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/354 > > commit a6cc0aedf96067e8b3aaf37662785fcf8b38dd18

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-16 Thread Daniel McCarney
I think this is a solid proposal addressing a real need. I'm +1 for supporting it both in spec and in Boulder/Pebble. Thanks Jacob, On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > In previous versions of ACME, there was sometimes a need to return > multiple

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-16 Thread Martin Thomson
Oh, my bad, my eyes turn out to be a terrible JSON parser. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Matthew A. Miller wrote: > On 17/11/16 16:47, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: >> On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> I don't know what a random JSON parser

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-16 Thread Matthew A. Miller
On 17/11/16 16:47, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error >> codes. > I don't understand. What I'm proposing is an array of JSON objects under > the sub-problems field, which should be

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-16 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error codes. I don't understand. What I'm proposing is an array of JSON objects under the sub-problems field, which should be supported by any JSON parser.

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-16 Thread Martin Thomson
Have you considered json text sequences: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7464 ? I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error codes. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > On 11/15/2017 07:07 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: >> Following

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-15 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/15/2017 07:07 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > Following Daniel's lead on looking for implementation: Is this > something LE would be implementing? Yep, we would definitely implement this. I'll send a PR. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org

Re: [Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-15 Thread Richard Barnes
This sounds pretty inoffensive to me. Want to send a PR? Following Daniel's lead on looking for implementation: Is this something LE would be implementing? On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > In previous versions of ACME, there was sometimes a need to

[Acme] Returning multiple errors

2017-11-15 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
In previous versions of ACME, there was sometimes a need to return multiple errors, broken out by domain name. For instance, when issuing a certificate by making a new-cert request, the CA has to check CAA, which may fail for multiple domains. Ideally, the client should not have to guess which